I think it is mostly better. In any case, I think I'm going to take up the punch card programming from Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine as the best programming language there ever will be, just to show people how ridiculous holy wars in computer science are lol
I don't see any paradigm, language, what-have-you as better than all other paradigms, language, what-have-yous. The best I would ever give a programming language, paradaigm, or what-have-you is that it: 1) best in a particular situation or that 2) it fits most of the situations programmers typically run into during development. It it true that multi-paradigm languages have beaten out single-paradigm ones, but not because they are 'better'. I'd argue that it is because of number 2 above.
Granted, functional programming may make certain things for the programmer easier to write, easier to understand, maybe some things more efficient (in terms of computer resources used), or maybe more complete but I don't see it as ultimately killing off OO. OO may be the dominant paradigm that most programs are written in these days but I think that reflects the fact that programmers are trying to solve problems that are far more complicated and dynamic these days than computer programs written 50 years ago.
OO is good at being able to encapsulate the complexity of a program so the programmer has a better time understanding it and it is good at being dynamic. Those abilities are needed in today's development world, so OO is dominant and the static way of 50 years ago is not. It is not, I'd say, because OO is 'better' than the old static way. If the development world needed the static way more than the OO way, then things would switch.
I see, ultimately, functional programming and OO as cordoning themselves off (so to speak) and fulfilling certain niches. It may also be the case that the functional paradigm is just so damned useful at most everything that it replaces OO as the dominant paradigm. Again, however, if that were to take place, it's because the functional paradigm is just more 'damned useful'.
no subject
I don't see any paradigm, language, what-have-you as better than all other paradigms, language, what-have-yous. The best I would ever give a programming language, paradaigm, or what-have-you is that it: 1) best in a particular situation or that 2) it fits most of the situations programmers typically run into during development. It it true that multi-paradigm languages have beaten out single-paradigm ones, but not because they are 'better'. I'd argue that it is because of number 2 above.
Granted, functional programming may make certain things for the programmer easier to write, easier to understand, maybe some things more efficient (in terms of computer resources used), or maybe more complete but I don't see it as ultimately killing off OO. OO may be the dominant paradigm that most programs are written in these days but I think that reflects the fact that programmers are trying to solve problems that are far more complicated and dynamic these days than computer programs written 50 years ago.
OO is good at being able to encapsulate the complexity of a program so the programmer has a better time understanding it and it is good at being dynamic. Those abilities are needed in today's development world, so OO is dominant and the static way of 50 years ago is not. It is not, I'd say, because OO is 'better' than the old static way. If the development world needed the static way more than the OO way, then things would switch.
I see, ultimately, functional programming and OO as cordoning themselves off (so to speak) and fulfilling certain niches. It may also be the case that the functional paradigm is just so damned useful at most everything that it replaces OO as the dominant paradigm. Again, however, if that were to take place, it's because the functional paradigm is just more 'damned useful'.